nMPP meeting

Thursday 12 Mar 2009, 09:00 → 10:30 Europe/Zurich

1/1-025 (CERN)

Nuria Catalan Lasheras

Slides

• ECR-Interlock-B1.pdf
• ECR-Interlock-B1.ppt
• Procedure_status12.03.pdf
• Procedure_status12.03.pptx

nMPP meeting 12 March 2009

General information

Rüdiger announced that as the hardware commissioning coordination takes off, he will step back from the nMPP chair; the meetings will be chaired by Nuria.
The status of the nMPP is not clear yet: the name is provisional and the mandate not approved by the management.
ACTION –> Rüdiger and Andrzej clarify these two points with the management and report to one of the next meetings

Procedures - status report (Matteo Solfaroli Camillocci)

Matteo presented a strategy to review the powering procedures and the status of advancement of this work (see slides), summarized in the table below:

N˚	Powering Procedure Title	EDMS n. / STATUS	Editors	Equipment experts
1	Test procedure and acceptance criteria for the 13 kA dipole circuits	874713 Released	A.Verwej M.Pojer M.Solfaroli	V.Montabonnet / H.Thiesen M.Zerlauth K.Dahlerup-Petersen / R.Denz A.Ballarino
2	Test procedure and acceptance criteria for the 13 kA quadrupole (RQD-RQF) circuits	874714 Released	A.Verwej M.Pojer M.Solfaroli	V.Montabonnet M.Zerlauth K.Dahlerup-Petersen / R.Denz A.Ballarino
3	Test procedure and acceptance criteria for the 600 A circuits	874716 Released	W.Venturini Delsolaro B.Bellesia M.Pojer	V.Montabonnet M.Zerlauth R.Denz G.J.Coelingh A.Ballarino
4	Test procedure and acceptance criteria for the 80 A and 120 A dipole corrector circuits	874722 Released	G.D’Angelo A.Vergara M.Solfaroli	D.Nisbet M.Zerlauth A.Ballarino
5	Test procedure and acceptance criteria for the 60 A corrector circuits	874724 Released	G.D’Angelo A. Vergara M. Solfaroli	D.Nisbet M.Zerlauth A.Ballarino
6	Test procedure for the individually powered 4-6 kA Quadrupole-circuits in the LHC insertion	874884 Approval Closed	N.Catalan Lasheras G.Kirby A.Vergara B.Bellesia	D.Nisbet M.Zerlauth R.Denz / S. le Naour A.Ballarino
7	Test procedure and acceptance criteria for the separation dipoles circuits	874885 Approval Closed	G.Kirby N.Catalan Lasheras A.Vergara B.Bellesia	D.Nisbet M.Zerlauth R.Denz / S. Feher A.Ballarino
8	Test procedure and acceptance criteria for the Inner Triplet circuits	874886 Eng. Check Closed	N.Catalan Lasheras G.Kirby A.Vergara M.Pojer	H.Thiesen / J.Thomsen M.Zerlauth R.Denz / S. Feher A.Ballarino
9	Test procedure and acceptance criteria for the Powering of Group of Circuits	916266 Eng. Check Closed	G.Arduini R.Wolf B.Bellesia M.Solfaroli	V.Montabonnet / H.Thiesen M.Zerlauth K.Dahlerup-Petersen R.Denz G.J.Coelingh A.Ballarino

The presentation triggered several questions and comments, listed below by topic.

Concerning the general strategy:

Michele asked whether we keep the same philosophy of last year when for each circuit family we had a general procedure and 8 sector specific documents;
Matteo answered he would rather use the general matrix of steps versus possible changes (see slides) to deduce what is to be done on a given sector.
Boris remarked this should rather be done at a circuit level.
Adriaan proposed to take into account the circuit history by linking it to the entry point in the general procedure
Walter noted that this is not general enough, as the subset of steps to be carried out is not necessarily a sequence without holes.
Rüdiger agreed, recalling as an example that the initial interlock tests will always be redone.
Michele suggested making the general procedure such that it is likely not to be modified each year.
Nuria remarked that the matrix itself might need to be revised as there could be modifications that we cannot foresee now, and that the question of what has changed will have to be asked every year.
Rudiger said that these are practicalities, but we all agree to have a general procedure and specificities that change each year
Matteo stressed that the table is just a tool to help framing the investigation on what has changed, and it might be discussed whether to include it in the general procedures or in a separate document as a guideline.
Boris and Walter agreed that it is useful to have it.
Nuria was not fully convinced
David stated that the safest approach would be to redo everything each year
Rüdiger replied that it is not necessarily so, for example as it would imply more quenching.
Karl Hubert asked whether we think to have additional steps
Matteo answered yes for some of the circuits, for example the RB
Karl Hubert asked whether we will take into account the possible coupling between circuits, as this was not done last year
Mirko said that this was dealt with by the PGC step
Walter said that this was in part true, but the PGC step needs to be revised in order to make sure to cover the coupling between circuits
Rüdiger suggested that Karl Hubert be involved in that effort, he agreed.
In summary:
The way in which the circuit history/specificity is taken into account in the procedures (and therefore in the test), remains to be formalised
KHM will be one of the authors of the PGC procedures/steps

Concerning the EDMS routing:

Several people expressed the wish to have the panel members informed of the document drafts at an early stage.
David hoped that he will be given the possibility to think about the whole set of procedures as a whole, he stressed that we need a global approach to procedures and to optimize tools; he also recalled that all the resource planning of the teams depend on these procedures
Matteo answered by noting that we are still at a very early stage, and meetings have started on each circuit type where all the equipment groups were represented by only one person per group, in the next days all the experts will get the possibility to check the drafts.
Markus recommended to use the history of changes in the EDMS documents and to give the sequencer team some lead time to implement changes
• It was concluded that all the new versions of the documents will go through an engineering check and all the panel members will be informed at this stage

Concerning MTF properties, logbooks, test tracking, data mining, etc…:

Karl Hubert said he had troubles to find the history of a circuit or track issues and issue follow up, when preparing his talk for Chamonix.
Markus said that all the information is in MTF and some tools to recover it are in place (for example in “Alvaro” page), but more could be provided if requested.
Karl Hubert recalled that the most useful sources of information for him were the PO and the QPS logbooks, and he suggested an automatic synoptic of all the logbooks
Mirko doubted that a synoptic would be easy to read and suggested a new logbook dedicated to the follow up of non conformities.
David suggested going back to the wealth of information from last year commissioning to establish standards for circuit behaviors. He added this would be a huge project, requiring resources.
Mike recalled that most MTF properties are filled, with the exception of a small fraction, and suggested to make a review to possibly erase properties that are not used.
Nuria remarked that nothing is in place to track quenches, as these are by definition “unforeseen events, and are mixed with all kind of aborted steps.
Marta observed that this was very much dependent on the people on shift that might use or not the MPP logbook.
Nuria asked everybody to come back with proposals on the kind of information we would like to get out from a data mining tool.
Andrzej recalled that there are several projects, such as the Global PM, that should be addressing this.
•In summary: MTF properties will be revised in all the new procedures
The tracking of non conformities is not properly implemented; see also Mirko's presentation at the next HC day
The situation on data analysis is confused, it is felt that the existing tools are not advertised enough, and there is a clear need of coordination (as well) on this subject

Again concerning the general strategy:

Walter asked to restate the rule that the powering procedures prepared by MPP cover all the activities done on the circuit after the end of the individual system tests and before it is declared commissioned and handed over to Operations. This implies as well that any new activity or measurement that might become necessary to sort out issues must be specified by a new procedure, which will have to come back to the panel for check and approval.
There were no objections.

- On the proposal to modify the 'Global powering Subsector OFF' functionality (Markus Zerlauth)

Markus summarized the situation, the alternatives, and the present understanding of the quench back phenomenon, and finally formulated a proposal. (See his slides). The presentation triggered a few questions:
Karl Hubert remarked that according to the findings presented by Markus, the so called quench back is in reality caused by the heat dissipated in the parallel resistor rather than by the high dB/dt, so we should find a better name for it.
Nuria asked whether the global protection mechanism was only activated at the PGC step
Markus confirmed that
Karl Hubert said that one more reason for accepting the proposal made by Markus is that a FPA is safer as it relies less on electronics.
Rüdiger asked whether we needed to adapt I_PNO values to 4 and 5 TeV
Walter answered that this was done last year for all the 600 A circuits, however it was painful. A drawback is also that it would force to interleave even more commissioning with beam operations. Anyway the parameters have been agreed with ABP and are available for the 600 A circuits
Nuria said it could be done as well for the IPQ.
The panel endorsed Markus' proposal, with no objections.

Next meeting Tuesday 24 March 2009

 

Reported by W. Venturini Delsolaro